Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.

[I]

It seems to me that one big problem with Ukraine is that the country's borders were drawn without any consideration for ethnic realities, and with little to no input from the people who actually lived there.  You see the same problem with counties in the Balkans, the Middle East and in Africa.  Ukraine was just a region (the name literally means "borderland" or "frontier")  filled with Ukrainians, Poles, Russians, and even a few Hungarians, then it became a country, but one where its countrymen share little but a history of conflict with one another.  The government naming Stepan Bandera a "Hero of Ukraine," building statues of the guy, naming streets after him and operating several museums that lionize him doesn't help matters, but rather inflames them.  It's like if the U.S. government built statues of Phil Sheridan and Andrew Jackson on every Indian reservation.  It would be taken, rightly, as intentional provocation and humiliation.

[Pat]

It seems to me that one big problem with Ukraine is that the country's borders were drawn without any consideration for ethnic realities, and with little to no input from the people who actually lived there.  You see the same problem with counties in the Balkans, the Middle East and in Africa.  Ukraine was just a region (the name literally means "borderland" or "frontier")  filled with Ukrainians, Poles, Russians, and even a few Hungarians, then it became a country, but one where its countrymen share little but a history of conflict with one another.  The government naming Stepan Bandera a "Hero of Ukraine," building statues of the guy, naming streets after him and operating several museums that lionize him doesn't help matters, but rather inflames them.  It's like if the U.S. government built statues of Phil Sheridan and Andrew Jackson on every Indian reservation.  It would be taken, rightly, as intentional provocation and humiliation.

That's been true since at least WW1. The end of the two World Wars and decolonialization involved a lot of random bureaucrats drawing lines on maps of places they knew little about, leading to borders that made no sense from a geographic or cultural standpoint. This even includes things like the US states, which were drawn in a rush as the expanding nation grabbed and then diced up new territory as quickly as it could. Which led to messes like Nevada, the vast majority of which is a desert whose rivers all empty into the Great Salt Lake, or West Virginia, a state which is basically mountains with no room for agriculture or major cities, and with very poor access (WV was a reaction to the Civil War, but the border was also rushed). Neither makes any sense as an independent state. This is worse in places like Africa, South America, the Balkans, much of the Middle East and Asia, where ethnic and linguistic groups were artificially severed or forced together into arrangements where one would be a perpetual minority, leading to endless persecution, strife, and often genocide; or large, contiguous groups of people like the Kurds with no homeland.

This is 100% a result of the "modern world order" to which all authoritarians sing paeans of technocratic adoration, because not a single major government or extra-state organization favors border change. It's anathema, forbidden, the sin of all sins. This is because, since the rise of the Wesphalian state, sovereignty within one's borders is the sacred belief of all statists. It's why Russia's definition of a broader Russia is considered an unspeakable heresy, even if some of those areas are ethnically Russian and would have voted to join with Russia instead of the Ukraine.

Many maps around the world cause vast pain and suffering, and should be redrawn. The breakup of the Czech and Yugo- slavias were much needed. There's a difference between wars of conquest and assimilation, and voluntary succession and accession. We can frown on the first, but we need to push back against the rigid status quoists, and encourage and celebrate the latter. Borders should be fluid, as peoples and their cultures changes. If people want to leave, we should let them, instead of waging horrific wars to preserve a nonconsensual union.

But as discussed earlier, this war may have helped forge a distinct Ukrainian sense of nationalism. Like the other gateway states between the continents, such as Poland, on whose fields endless blood has been spilled as warlords have used them as passages to sweeter targets, Ukraine has struggled to maintain a unique identity.

[Shrieking Banshee]

It seems to me that one big problem with Ukraine is that the country's borders were drawn without any consideration for ethnic realities, and with little to no input from the people who actually lived there.

Well also a large chunk of people in the east living there where relocated after the ethnic population was starved in the millions.

[Battlemaster]

More pain for putin...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t-pdZSv7G10&t=472s

Am I a prick for not feeling sorry for him? 

[Chris24601]

It seems to me that one big problem with Ukraine is that the country's borders were drawn without any consideration for ethnic realities, and with little to no input from the people who actually lived there.

Well also a large chunk of people in the east living there where relocated after the ethnic population was starved in the millions.

And a related problem there is just the passage of time. The Holodomor, horrific as it was, was almost 90 years ago and four generations have been born there since.

How much responsibility does someone who's great great grandfather was relocated there by the Soviets have for living where his father, grandfather and great grandfather were born?

Where are he and his family supposed to relocate if the land he lives on is claimed as reparations for the crimes of his ancestor's government*? His family has lived there as long as his eldest living relative can remember. Where is his home supposed to be?

Is he entitled to any compensation for improvements made by himself and his ancestors if he is made to leave? Or do the sins of those he never even knew mean he and his family should be tossed into the streets and stripped of citizenship with no country to call home?

How do you achieve justice for the atrocities committed by people long dead without creating a new one yourself?

That's the problem with a lot conflicts; none of the groups involved are static so sooner or later you're holding people accountable for things they played no part in and no territory on Earth is still in the hands of the first people to set foot on it. It doesn't take long before your efforts to reclaim something that historically belonged to your people are just pushing out people who've lived there their entire lives, if not their parents and even grandparents lives.

Do the ancestors of the Scythians have a claim on any lands in Ukraine? It was their territory right through antiquity until the Goths conquered it in the 2nd Century AD only to lose it to the Slavic migrations of the early Medieval period. At some point each previous group loses their legitimate claim to the territory and their descendants become innocent of any crime unless you believe in collective guilt by blood relation.

I don't have a one-size-fits all answer on when that is... but it has to happen at some point or everyone is guilty by blood of every past sin of every ancestor since the human race began... everyone is guilty of crimes worthy of death and the only way to ever make it right is kill everyone on Earth to avenge all the dead victims of history.

The only thing that doesn't end up with endless bloodshed is accepting that people are only truly responsible for the sins they've personally committed and that in an imperfect world such as ours sometimes justice will have to be left in the hands of God.

* it's not like the average Russian settler in the 1930's had much of any say to where the Soviet government moved them. Holding their descendants accountable as if they committed the crime further compounds the potential for injustice.

[Battlemaster]

Damn, Chris, that is one well reasoned, rational and intelligent response. You should run for political office but sadly you'de never be elected with a demeeanor like that.

[Chris24601]

Damn, Chris, that is one well reasoned, rational and intelligent response. You should run for political office but sadly you'de never be elected with a demeeanor like that.

I'd also step on the toes of a lot of people who survive off grifting. The logic is the same when it comes to the reparations issue in the United States; slavery here ended 157 years ago and 5-6 generations have been born in the century and a half since. Half my ancestors alive at that time didn't even live in the country. The other half fought in the Civil War to end slavery. Some of those demanding reparations immigrated from other countries after slavery had ended so their ancestors were never enslaved to begin with.

No one alive today had anything to do with slavery. Many people's ancestors weren't even here at the time and others fought and died to end it. Later generations stood with and helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (with little help of that era's Democrats; that was Republican legislation) before many of us here were even born.

We've had affirmative action/quota/reverse discrimination policies in place in education and business for decades now. Yet the demand of the grifters is still reparations for slavery when everyone actually responsible for it is long dead and even if you did argue for blood debt many of those they demand payment from have no ancestors who owned slaves.

At a certain point the seeking of justice for the long dead becomes injustice committed against people innocent of any crime. How many more decades of affirmative action policies must there be before everyone is even? If we actually paid the reparations demanded by the grifters how many years would it be before they claimed those were not enough and they deserve more because things still aren't equal in outcome?*

Collective anything isn't justice. If it were genuine justice they wouldn't need to keep slapping adjectives onto it. They call social or racial justice precisely because the desired outcomes for their collective do result in injustice being done to others.

* Equality of outcome can never be achieved in a just world, only opportunities. If two people are given $100k and one uses it to start a business that turns into a success and the other spends it on drugs and hookers over a long weekend... is it then just to demand the business owner give half his company to Mr. Hookers & Blow in order to ensure equality of outcome?

[oggsmash]

Damn, Chris, that is one well reasoned, rational and intelligent response. You should run for political office but sadly you'de never be elected with a demeeanor like that.

I'd also step on the toes of a lot of people who survive off grifting. The logic is the same when it comes to the reparations issue in the United States; slavery here ended 157 years ago and 5-6 generations have been born in the century and a half since. Half my ancestors alive at that time didn't even live in the country. The other half fought in the Civil War to end slavery. Some of those demanding reparations immigrated from other countries after slavery had ended so their ancestors were never enslaved to begin with.

No one alive today had anything to do with slavery. Many people's ancestors weren't even here at the time and others fought and died to end it. Later generations stood with and helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (with little help of that era's Democrats; that was Republican legislation) before many of us here were even born.

We've had affirmative action/quota/reverse discrimination policies in place in education and business for decades now. Yet the demand of the grifters is still reparations for slavery when everyone actually responsible for it is long dead and even if you did argue for blood debt many of those they demand payment from have no ancestors who owned slaves.

At a certain point the seeking of justice for the long dead becomes injustice committed against people innocent of any crime. How many more decades of affirmative action policies must there be before everyone is even? If we actually paid the reparations demanded by the grifters how many years would it be before they claimed those were not enough and they deserve more because things still aren't equal in outcome?*

Collective anything isn't justice. If it were genuine justice they wouldn't need to keep slapping adjectives onto it. They call social or racial justice precisely because the desired outcomes for their collective do result in injustice being done to others.

* Equality of outcome can never be achieved in a just world, only opportunities. If two people are given $100k and one uses it to start a business that turns into a success and the other spends it on drugs and hookers over a long weekend... is it then just to demand the business owner give half his company to Mr. Hookers & Blow in order to ensure equality of outcome?

  I think the name for that is called blood libel, and is largely considered a massive injustice in the context the term originated.  Yet for some reason modern "thinkers" feel it will end well.  Oh well, I think it is a trait of human nature to look for someone else to blame for your problems, as long as that exists I think this merry go round keeps going.

[Chris24601]

Damn, Chris, that is one well reasoned, rational and intelligent response. You should run for political office but sadly you'de never be elected with a demeeanor like that.

I'd also step on the toes of a lot of people who survive off grifting. The logic is the same when it comes to the reparations issue in the United States; slavery here ended 157 years ago and 5-6 generations have been born in the century and a half since. Half my ancestors alive at that time didn't even live in the country. The other half fought in the Civil War to end slavery. Some of those demanding reparations immigrated from other countries after slavery had ended so their ancestors were never enslaved to begin with.

No one alive today had anything to do with slavery. Many people's ancestors weren't even here at the time and others fought and died to end it. Later generations stood with and helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (with little help of that era's Democrats; that was Republican legislation) before many of us here were even born.

We've had affirmative action/quota/reverse discrimination policies in place in education and business for decades now. Yet the demand of the grifters is still reparations for slavery when everyone actually responsible for it is long dead and even if you did argue for blood debt many of those they demand payment from have no ancestors who owned slaves.

At a certain point the seeking of justice for the long dead becomes injustice committed against people innocent of any crime. How many more decades of affirmative action policies must there be before everyone is even? If we actually paid the reparations demanded by the grifters how many years would it be before they claimed those were not enough and they deserve more because things still aren't equal in outcome?*

Collective anything isn't justice. If it were genuine justice they wouldn't need to keep slapping adjectives onto it. They call social or racial justice precisely because the desired outcomes for their collective do result in injustice being done to others.

* Equality of outcome can never be achieved in a just world, only opportunities. If two people are given $100k and one uses it to start a business that turns into a success and the other spends it on drugs and hookers over a long weekend... is it then just to demand the business owner give half his company to Mr. Hookers & Blow in order to ensure equality of outcome?

  I think the name for that is called blood libel, and is largely considered a massive injustice in the context the term originated.  Yet for some reason modern "thinkers" feel it will end well.  Oh well, I think it is a trait of human nature to look for someone else to blame for your problems, as long as that exists I think this merry go round keeps going.

To be fair, there are legitimate past injustices of horrific scale; the Armenian Genocide, the Holodomor, the Holocaust, Slavery. It is right to want justice for these crimes.

It is wrong though to assign blame to those who had nothing to do with those crimes, particularly long after everyone involved in the actual crime is long dead. The great great grandchild of an uncaught murderer does not deserve to die because the victim's great great grandchild demands justice for the crime.

It probably wouldn't sit right with everyone; but I think in many of these cases the only justice we the living can provide for the long dead without committing injustices of our own is to promote the remembrance that these crimes occurred; plant monuments to those lost and reminders of who the criminals were and what they represented so that future generations can avoid following down the same road.

[oggsmash]

Damn, Chris, that is one well reasoned, rational and intelligent response. You should run for political office but sadly you'de never be elected with a demeeanor like that.

I'd also step on the toes of a lot of people who survive off grifting. The logic is the same when it comes to the reparations issue in the United States; slavery here ended 157 years ago and 5-6 generations have been born in the century and a half since. Half my ancestors alive at that time didn't even live in the country. The other half fought in the Civil War to end slavery. Some of those demanding reparations immigrated from other countries after slavery had ended so their ancestors were never enslaved to begin with.

No one alive today had anything to do with slavery. Many people's ancestors weren't even here at the time and others fought and died to end it. Later generations stood with and helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (with little help of that era's Democrats; that was Republican legislation) before many of us here were even born.

We've had affirmative action/quota/reverse discrimination policies in place in education and business for decades now. Yet the demand of the grifters is still reparations for slavery when everyone actually responsible for it is long dead and even if you did argue for blood debt many of those they demand payment from have no ancestors who owned slaves.

At a certain point the seeking of justice for the long dead becomes injustice committed against people innocent of any crime. How many more decades of affirmative action policies must there be before everyone is even? If we actually paid the reparations demanded by the grifters how many years would it be before they claimed those were not enough and they deserve more because things still aren't equal in outcome?*

Collective anything isn't justice. If it were genuine justice they wouldn't need to keep slapping adjectives onto it. They call social or racial justice precisely because the desired outcomes for their collective do result in injustice being done to others.

* Equality of outcome can never be achieved in a just world, only opportunities. If two people are given $100k and one uses it to start a business that turns into a success and the other spends it on drugs and hookers over a long weekend... is it then just to demand the business owner give half his company to Mr. Hookers & Blow in order to ensure equality of outcome?

  I think the name for that is called blood libel, and is largely considered a massive injustice in the context the term originated.  Yet for some reason modern "thinkers" feel it will end well.  Oh well, I think it is a trait of human nature to look for someone else to blame for your problems, as long as that exists I think this merry go round keeps going.

To be fair, there are legitimate past injustices of horrific scale; the Armenian Genocide, the Holodomor, the Holocaust, Slavery. It is right to want justice for these crimes.

It is wrong though to assign blame to those who had nothing to do with those crimes, particularly long after everyone involved in the actual crime is long dead. The great great grandchild of an uncaught murderer does not deserve to die because the victim's great great grandchild demands justice for the crime.

It probably wouldn't sit right with everyone; but I think in many of these cases the only justice we the living can provide for the long dead without committing injustices of our own is to promote the remembrance that these crimes occurred; plant monuments to those lost and reminders of who the criminals were and what they represented so that future generations can avoid following down the same road.

  yeah, we call that wisdom (knowledge with scars), and it has always been a little short in the mental stores for most people, and seems really low supply these days.

[Battlemaster]

Chris, you do know I was praising you, right?

As to shit happening 90 years ago, uh, you do know that in the Mideast was are still being fought over shit that happened oger a thousand years ago, right?

[Chris24601]

Chris, you do know I was praising you, right?

As to shit happening 90 years ago, uh, you do know that in the Mideast was are still being fought over shit that happened oger a thousand years ago, right?

I did realize that, yes. I was merely expounding on the point to give broader context that it is not just a matter in the current conflict, but is part and parcel of many claims for justice for the long dead at the expense of various innocents.

I am also aware of the situation in the Middle East and, frankly, the United States' role in perpetuating it so as to enrich various elitists of both parties. The problem there is that many of the parties do believe in blood libel and perpetual ownership of territory (starting from the moment their people/ancestors took claim anyway... who came before or who came after is irrelevant).

Those who seek control over others love blood libel and claims of historical ownership; it's a great rallying cry to lend a sense of moral imperative to their conquest of others... "generations ago this land belonged to our people, but (the distant ancestors of) those people stole it from us and we deserve it back."

That's the lion's share of Putin's justification for his actions in Ukraine* and it's the same one used in the initial stages of just about any modern campaign of conquest. Hitler started off claiming he only wanted to reclaim traditionally German territory (belonging to it far more recently than Ukraine belonged to the Russian Empire even).

Conquerors have to wrap their conquests up in language like that because if they told the truth they'd never get anyone to go fight their wars.

"Leave your farm and family, risk your life to enrich and empower the already rich and powerful and, as a reward, if you're lucky, you get to return to your farm and family in more or less one piece until the rich and powerful need more riches and power and so will take your son away from his family to do it all again."

No one in their right mind would sign up for that... there'd be mass revolt. That's why it's always wrapped up in some claim of seeking justice or keeping your family safe or "making the world safe for democracy."

It's quite telling that the one President in 40 years who never started a new foreign conflict during their term is the one the establishment members of both parties hated and comspired to remove from office. The establishment forbade him even a single recess appointment during his entire term so he could only use establishment cronies to fill his cabinet who wouldn't go against the graft.

The central planners want to centralize even more of society; calling it Build Back Better... but the only thing that will actually make the world better is by decentralizing power so no one assclown has the power to start another of these pointless Forever Wars.

* military actions taken by the Ukrainian government against ethnic Russian civilians in eastern Ukraine since 2014 in violation of various treaties were also claimed as motives, but if that were the entire motivation then their attacks would have long since ceased since those regions have been secured by the Russians. Instead attacks into Western Ukraine continue.

[Shrieking Banshee]

And a related problem there is just the passage of time. The Holodomor, horrific as it was, was almost 90 years ago and four generations have been born there since.

How much responsibility does someone who's great great grandfather was relocated there by the Soviets have for living where his father, grandfather and great grandfather were born?

Where was the implication I was blaming the people living there?
Those people where the ones who had their homes blown up first in this war. A large majority dislocated are those from the east.
Im angry at the current Russian government for using that weak as hell claim to bombard the people they are "rescuing". So they can secure a land bridge to project naval strength they don't have. Also getting access to natural resources by pure coincidence.

I don't believe in reparations, but if your gonna kill and displace people, don't claim your rescuing them.

[KindaMeh]

I think there's a certain degree of dark humor to the fact that both America and RUSSIA promised to more or less defend Ukraine in the case of an invasion in exchange for their disarmament.

I also kinda have to admit that with recent decisions and consequences for former USA cooperators in places like Afghanistan America might not be looking as good on the global stage as regards long term support to our declared allies and the like.

Not saying political agreements should always be followed through on if unjust, nonsensical, or totally self-destructive, but if things like a promised action not being innately to one's immediate noticeable and unarguable strategic interests in the moment were an excuse not to do them, then I feel like maybe that kinda nullifies the point of making most agreements. In part because what are promises worth if you abandon them the moment they are viewed as unfavorable, and why rely on long term promises and agreements at all if nations will just and should just do what they feel benefits them the most from moment to moment.

[Battlemaster]

It's quite telling that the one President in 40 years who never started a new foreign conflict during their term is the one the establishment members of both parties hated and comspired to remove from office. The establishment forbade him even a single recess appointment during his entire term so he could only use establishment cronies to fill his cabinet who wouldn't go against the graft.

The central planners want to centralize even more of society; calling it Build Back Better... but the only thing that will actually make the world better is by decentralizing power so no one assclown has the power to start another of these pointless Forever Wars.

* military actions taken by the Ukrainian government against ethnic Russian civilians in eastern Ukraine since 2014 in violation of various treaties were also claimed as motives, but if that were the entire motivation then their attacks would have long since ceased since those regions have been secured by the Russians. Instead attacks into Western Ukraine continue.

If you're talking about that thing that was in the white house after losing to Hillary Clinton by 3 million votes, I remind you it launched military strikes at Syria.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1144601/trump-orders-missile-attack-in-retaliation-for-syrian-chemical-strikes/

Also,  it has been established that the animal in the white house in 2020 wanted to use the US military to 'beat the fuck out of'' and shoot protestors in Washington in 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mark-esper-trump-shoot-black-lives-matter-protesters-1346079/